Minimum cash spend will be based on unadjusted cap numbers

Posted by Mike Florio on February 12, 2012, 3:19 PM EDT

Getty Images

In response to our item from earlier today regarding the ability of teams to carry over cap space from year to year simply by submitting a piece of paper signed by the owner indicating a desire to do so, some of you have suggested that teams will refrain from doing so because it would drive up their minimum cash spending requirement.

Per a league source with knowledge of the dynamics of the CBA, it won’t.

When the 89-percent per-team spending minimum kicks in next year, the threshold will be based on the unadjusted cap number. And so no amount of carried-over cap space will increase the amount each team must spend on a rolling three-year average, as of 2013.

As a result, there’s no reason for any team to avoid carrying over the full amount of any excess cap space. Unless, of course, the team is cheap.

Here’s the full list of remaining cap space, by team. Five teams have more than $20 million: the Jaguars ($31.66 million); the Broncos ($27.88 million); the Buccaneers ($25.05 million); the Chiefs ($24.01 million); and the Seahawks ($21.27 million).

The five teams with the least remaining 2011 cap space are the Lions ($1.47 million); the Texans ($1.08 million); the Giants ($1.06 million); the Falcons ($747,000); and the Steelers ($506,000).

23 responses to “Minimum cash spend will be based on unadjusted cap numbers”

As I said on the other one, wouldn’t playing one year 20million over the cap cause cap problems the next year when you have to go back down to normal. That would seem like a pretty good reason not too carry the full amount over.

Five teams have more than $20 million: the Jaguars ($31.66 million); the Broncos ($27.88 million); the Buccaneers ($25.05 million); the Chiefs ($24.01 million); and the Seahawks ($21.27 million).
***************************************************
If I were a fan of any of these teams, I’d be pissed.

When the 89-percent per-team spending minimum kicks in next year, the threshold will be based on the unadjusted cap number. And so no amount of carried-over cap space will increase the amount each team must spend on a rolling three-year average, as of 2013.

———————————————————-

Also that team minimum will be a cash base on a 4 year avg for 2013-2016 so it won’t even be looked at until then end of the 2016 season.

As I said on the other one, wouldn’t playing one year 20million over the cap cause cap problems the next year when you have to go back down to normal. That would seem like a pretty good reason not too carry the full amount over.

—————————–

Not necessarily if you use it correctly. You could use that money for a bunch of 1 year deals, or if you really can keep rolling it over you could use it for a decent 4 year contract for someone. Look at it this way: You’ve got $20MM Left over, you give someone a 4 year contract that pays $5MM a year, you’re essentially getting that player without having to take any sort of cap hit. Another way you could take advantage of this is by frontloading contracts: Instead of giving someone a 4 year $14MM contract that pays out equally every year you can structure it so that it pays $10MM in year 1 and then $1MM in each remaining year. Thus for the last 3 years of the contract you’re getting a player for almost no cap hit.

There is no downside to this arrangement for teams that have a lot of cap space left over.

Go back thru the years and you will learn that the Chiefs are always one of the leaders in cap space. They have always been cheap and thats why they will never be in a super bowl. Nothing magical about it.

OK, the Steelers just cleared out 20 million from restructuring. They push a fraction of that amount onto each future year. What’s to stop a team from restructuring all the way to the floor and then claiming credits in future years? They could literally stockpile cap credits til the cows come home. There MUST be more to this story!

As I said on the other one, wouldn’t playing one year 20million over the cap cause cap problems the next year when you have to go back down to normal. That would seem like a pretty good reason not too carry the full amount over.

Not necessarily, it just adds a new game to play. If a team is 20 million over the cap and they want to sign a new free agent, they can give him a huge salary in the first year instead of a huge signing bonus. That way the cap hit is stuck on the year with the surplus.

(at least they can do that until they start using average annual salary for cap numbers like the nhl)

PC has shown that he can find talent (Browner, Sherman etc) on the cheap and with all the transactions him and Schenider, know what he’s doing in finding talent and getting the most out of player, as this team improved over last year’s, no matter the record. He passed the test.

Now time to spend some of Paul Allen’s money.

Sign Lynch to a reasonable, non Shaun Alexender contract, replace Forsett with a different, bigger speed back, and then a bunch of coin (and the 1st round draft pick) on a further upgraded O-Line…then make the run at Manning.

With more protection on the line, two good backs to hand it off to, two good (already on the roster) TE’s for the safety valve dump pass, Manning will have as good a chance as any team that is truly in the running for him, to succeed if they build around him.

If the gamble doesn’t pay off with Peyton’s health, Jackson gets the benefit of the offensive upgrades.